Is it possible for Sarah Palin to get any more distasteful?

Here’s another example of her viper-like turning on old allies when they cross her, as Geoffrey Dunn writes in Huffington Post:

But perhaps the nastiest and most duplicitous passages of all in Going Rogue are those directed at Andree McLeod, the longtime Republican watchdog out of Anchorage who filed many of the Alaska Ethics Act complaints that, by Palin’s own admission, hounded her from office.

Because McLeod has some Lebanese heritage, Palin dubbed her “the falafel lady.” And claimed she’s some sort of left-wing nutcase, because she had the chutzpah to call Palin to account for numerous ethics violations.

Dunn proceeds to quote from several gushing e-mails of praise that Palin wrote to McLeod, back when she was in Palin’s good graces. Here’s one of them:

That was a great letter to the ed. this week Andree. I haven’t had time to call but wanted to tell you it was, again, insightful & educational & good writing. I’m still disenchanted with the whole issue of RR and state politics and am not even very optimistic about the call for an independent investigation. We’ll see. I guess I’ll believe it when I see it. Hope you’re doing well, staying warm & staying on top of all these state issues I’m hearing about on the news! Love, SP

Dunn, whose book The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power will be published next year by St. Martin’s Press, is a frequent critic of the colorful ex -governor. Here, for instance, is his look at the first ten lies in Palin’s ghostwritten-but-not-credited memoir, which has no index and apparently doesn’t mention the ghostwriter on the cover, title page, or copyright page (great ethics, there, Sarah–all you needed was the usual “as told to” line in small print).

Meanwhile, Palin continues to cram her foot into her mouth. Even on the friendly turf of Sean Hannity’s TV how, Sarah Palin can’t tell the difference between Iran and Iraq. Though she scores a point for her excellent pronunciation of “Ahmadinejad.”

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

This just in: Proponents of single-payer health care, a/k/a Medicare for All–the system used by almost every developed country in the world–will not get our promised floor vote after all.

If I were in Congress right now, I’d vote no. The bill has gotten weaker, more complicated, and more expensive with every turn. As I understand it, it is a giveaway to big insurers and might actually leave fewer people insured than we have now. A travesty!

President Obama–WHERE is the “change” you promised so loudly one year ago? As The Who sang in my very favorite song, “We Don’t Get Fooled Again,” “Meet the new boss…same as the old boss.”

Below is the public statement from Physicians for a National Health Program

November 6, 2009

Dear PNHP colleagues and friends,

We are disappointed to report that there will not be a vote on the Weiner amendment for single payer today in advance of the vote on the House bill tomorrow.

Two reasons were given by Rep. Weiner for withdrawing his amendment:

1. Speaker Pelosi said if she allowed debate on the single-payer amendment, she would have to allow debate on an expansion of the Hyde anti-abortion amendment, which the Democrats do not wish to do, and

2. There are at least 8 members who would vote against the House bill if they were given a chance to vote for Weiner’s single-payer amendment. At this point the Democratic leadership is desperately counting votes; they can only afford to lose 15 votes total, and according to the Washington Post, they are currently down by 25 votes.

Next steps and interpretation –

1. The fact that single payer got so far along in the House is a testament to the strength of our single-payer movement. The huge number of calls by single-payer advocates in support of single payer and the Weiner amendment in recent weeks have been noted by several members of Congress. Increasingly the public is learning what Harvard health economist William Hsiao told the New York Times, that “< #taiwan>[y]ou can have universal coverage and good quality health care while still managing to control costs. But you have to have a single-payer system to do it.”

2. It appears that nobody, particularly President Obama, expected our single-payer option to be alive in the Congress for so long. As you know, they attempted to keep it “off the table” from the very beginning.

3. The president was directly involved in the decision to not hold a vote on the Weiner single-payer amendment, and Weiner will be meeting with him later today. Stay tuned.

4. We need to increase pressure on the Congress and White House for Medicare for All through lobbying, speaking engagements, media outreach, grassroots organizing and civil disobedience. Senator Bernie Sanders will call for a vote on single payer in the Senate – this could come up anytime in the next month. Encourage your senator to support the Sanders bill (S. 703) and also an amendment he will offer for a state single-payer option. Our friends in the California Nurses Association/NNOC have already started lobbying visits to the Senate in D.C. Lobbying materials, slides, and other materials from our spectacular Annual Meeting in Cambridge are now on-line at www.pnhp.org/annual-meeting-2009

5. In the national office we are working on press outreach regarding uninsured veterans (we’ll have a release for you early next week on this) and civil disobedience by physicians in support of Medicare for All (see press release, below). Members are encouraged to continue to publish op-eds, letters to the editor, and articles in support of single payer (see articles in today’s Asheville, (N.C) Citizen-Times and the Palm Beach Post, below).

6. We have been asked how to tell members to vote on the House bill. Our response is that the bill “is like aspirin for breast cancer”. As noted by PNHP Past President Dr. John Geyman in his latest blog post “No bill is better than a bad bill,” even the public option in the House bill is a sham.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Last time I checked, there’s something here in the United States of America called the First Amendment that protects the right to speak and write.

Somehow, that right did not extend to Elliot Madison, a New York City activist who was arrested in Pittsburgh on the first day of the G20 summit for—get this!—tweeting that the police had ordered protesters in a certain area to disperse.

A week later, his house in New York was raided and all sorts of personal possessions belonging to him and his housemates (who were kept handcuffed at the scene for 16 hours) were seized.

Democracy Now ran a long interview with Madison and his lawyer this morning. It should be must-reading for anyone concerned about civil liberties. This is as bad as the abrogations of rights that happened to US citizens under the Bush administration (at the various national party conventions, for instance).

Lots more on this story in the New York Times and elsewhere.

We MUST NOT ALLOW the continued criminalization and marginalization of dissent!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Exactly how did Bernie Madoff steal his billions? Why are Halliburton’s hands so dirty? What happened with corruption cases in the rebuilding of Iraq? Following a link from EthicsWorld’s e-newsletter, I came to a single URL that has multiple stories on corruption: https://www.ethicsworld.org/publicsectorgovernance/corruptioninvestigations.php#sec.

This is what we’re up against, those of us who believe in ethics.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Been spending some time on Huffington Post this morning, always a fascinating place. Here’s some of what I’ve been reading:

Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley on Republican strategist Frank Luntz’s plan to derail health reform. What he doesn’t talk about is single-payer, which I believe could engage the strong support of the American people and roll right over all the roadblocks put there by industry lobbyists–while piecemeal “reform” would gain no such support. I do not understand why mainstream Democrats aren’t pushing this issue. It’s key to a raft of economic boosts that would help, for instance, both US automakers and labor. It’s little-talked-about that because most governments around the world, at least in developed nations, provide a real health care service, foreign competitors to GM, Ford, and Chrysler aren’t stuck with that enormous cost.

Robert Borosage on the general climate of business corruption in Washington. And on how that corruption has caused us to fail in such areas as mandatory sick leave, which then in turn makes the “stay home” response to swine flu impractical for those at the bottom of the ladder, who might lose their jobs and would certainly lose their pay.

Apparently some right-wing pundits have nothing better to do than attack Obama as elitist because–are you sitting down?–he likes Grey Poupon or Dijon mustard on his burgers! Give me a break! You can buy the stuff for two dollars a bottle at a discount store, and it sure does taste a lot better than the yellow glop that’s largely turmeric. I say unto them: get a life!

Stephen Colbert’s very funny video spoofing the big too-big-to-fail bailouts; no commentary necessary from me

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Although I’m a strong advocate of same-sex marriage, and have attended a number of gay and lesbian ceremonies long before they were legal in any U.S. state, I am very disturbed by a ruling of New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission that a photography studio, Elane Photography (owned by Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin, was not within its rights to decline a job photographing a same-sex wedding. (That link is to the NPR story–scroll down–and in the midst of the coverage is a link to download a PDF of the actual decision.) And the photography studio is to pick up $6,637.94 in plaintiff’s legal fees!

The decision quotes the actual e-mail correspondence, which was civil, measured,not the least bit threatening, and simply stating that the couple did not choose to photograph same-sex weddings.

When someone contacts me regarding my copywriting/consulting services, I send back an e-mail response that includes the following:

Please note that I reserve the right to reject a project if I feel I’m not the right person for it. This would include projects that in my opinion promote racism, homophobia, bigotry or violence–or that promote the tobacco, nuclear power, or weapons industries–or if I do not feel the product is of high enough quality that I can get enthusiastic about it.

In other words, I am putting out my values and stating clearly that I will not accept projects in conflict with my values. I have in fact occasionally turned down projects because they were promoting causes I actively disagree with. And in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, I even have a section called “When to Say No to a Sale.”

While the values of these photographers are not my values, I think they, too, should have the right to turn down projects that violate their particular beliefs. I feel this on both ethical and practical grounds: the truth is, when someone takes on a project in conflict with deep internal values, that person won’t turn in good work.

I support their right to not be hired to perform their art for a cause they disagree with; this is not a public accommodation, such as a restaurant or hotel denying service. It is not a job discrimination issue, but a self-employed couple in the creative arts choosing not to be hired by a prospective client.

It would be a sad day indeed if someone were to compel me to write propaganda for, say, a homophobic organization, or a company whose primary product is nuclear weapons.

I don’t know if there’s any appeal process for the New Mexico board, but I certainly hope there is. Something is very definitely rotten in this decision.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

California State and Consumer Services Agency chief Rosario Marin resigned from the Schwarzenegger cabinet after taking criticism for accepting large speaking fees from companies who had a vested interest in the outcome of her decisions.

California policy prohibits this, and Marin’s actions show exactly why. I say this as someone who makes part of my own living as a professional speaker, but goodness, I’m not a regulator regulating my own clients!

A quick bit from the L.A. Times story:

Among the fees Marin took was $15,000 from Pfizer Inc. for a speech in 2007 at a time when the company was lobbying the Board of Pharmacy, a regulatory panel Marin oversaw. Bristol-Myers Squibb paid $13,500 for Marin’s speaking services last year within weeks of lobbying her agency.

“I don’t know how you could justify that,” said Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate), chairman of a legislative committee on accountability and oversight. “The conflict is so clear, in my mind.”

I don’t know either.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

We’ve known for quite a while that the reconstruction effort in Iraq is rife with incredible corruption. Under the Bush administration, there were basically no safeguards, and stories of money diverted into the pockets of US looters were legion.

Still, I had no idea it was this bad. According to Patrick Cockburn of the respected UK newspaper The Independent, when you add up all the thefts of a few billion here, a few million there, it totals around $125 billion. That is two-and-a-quarter times as much as Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

Perhaps the saddest part is that of course, this money is NOT being used to rebuild Iraq. And therefore, not creating some good will to mitigate the horrific effects of our totally unjustified invasion and occupation. A proper rebuilding effort would have gone a long way toward demonstrating that the US had at least some altruistic motives. Instead, the rubble grows, the infrastructure fails, and Americans are hated more than ever.

I hope the Obama administration cracks down on these crooks, gets the troops out (I notice the timeline just got longer, from 16 to 18 months), and shows the Iraqi people that we are made of stronger stuff, and take seriously the mission to help undo the calamity we created.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

President Obama came into office following a long and thorough process of checking people out, and with a particular (and very welcome) screen for ethics issues. Yet here it is, just two weeks into this new presidency, and there have been at least five nominees who’ve either raised ethics eyebrows or withdrawn entirely: Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Timothy Geithner, and William J. Lynn III among them. And there are several others whose close ties to the industries they’re supposed to regulate could make people more than a little nervous.

What is refreshing, at least, is Obama’s willingness to stand up and say that he “screwed up.” After eight years of a president who refused to take responsibility for his actions, who could not come up with a single action when asked point-blank what his mistakes were–even while he was digging the country into several concurrent very deep holes–that is a good thing indeed.

This is not the rampant and blatant corruption and favoritism of the Bush presidency, or even the somewhat shady dealings under Clinton. But still, it does raise questions–lots of questions. And the biggest question in my mind is whether the flaws are inherent in the system. Do we need such wide restructuring that the revolving door is bolted shut? And if we do, how do we find people with the competencies needed to run these huge agencies?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Not since Clarence Thomas called Anita Hill’s harassment allegations “a legal lynching” have I heard such disgusting self-aggrandizement as came out of the mouth of Gov. Rod Blagojevich. He actually has the chutzpah to compare himself to Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.

These three heroes of mine have only one thing in common with Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi: They all understood how to get attention in the media; they were marketers. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi is taking his roadshow to major media when he ought to be in Springfield, Illinois, at his impeachment trial.

Those three giants of social justice went to jail for the rightness of their cause. If Blagojevich goes to jail, it will be because he got greedy, and got caught. I cannot imagine King, Gandhi, or Mandela selling a senate seat to the highest bidder.

Oh, and if you want a relatively recent recap of the Thomas confirmation circus, look no further than this splendid diatribe by Frank Rich in the New York Times, October 7, 2007. It would be a violation of copyright for me to quote the whole thing, but I’ll give you a little taste–and the link:

Pity Clarence Thomas. Done in by what he calls “left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony” — as he describes anyone who challenged his elevation to the court — he still claims to have suffered as much as African-Americans once victimized by “bigots in white robes.” Since kicking off his book tour on “60 Minutes” last Sunday, he has been whining all the way to the bank

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail